alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Granted; Order filed October 17, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00272

- CV

____________ BENJAMIN K. SANCHEZ , Appellant

V.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATION AL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006

- OPT4, ASSET

- BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006

- OPT4, HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC. F/ K/A AMERICAN HOME MO RTGAGE SERVICING, INC., AND REAL TIME RESOLUTION S, INC., Appellee s

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 06133



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed June 20, 2013

. On October 4, 2013, appellant filed a motion to correct the clerk’s record and extend time to file his appel late brief. According to appellant’s motion, t he record does not contain :a. Doc. 51211456

– Proposed Temporary Restraining Order and Order Setting

Temporary Injunction Hearing
b. Doc. 54144012

– Notice of Submission

c. Doc. 54144013

– Proposed Order
d. D oc. 54166295

– Notice of Submission on Defendant Real Time Resolutions, Inc.’s No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment

e. Doc. 54166296

– Proposed Order

f. Doc. 54166300

– Notice of Submission g. Doc. 54268254

– Proposed Order Setting Hearing
h. Doc. 54264 023

– Plaintiffs’ Notice of Change of Telephone & Facsimile Numbers
i. Doc. 54281698

– Plaintiffs’ Verified Opposed First Motion for Continuance j. Doc. 54281699

– Plaintiffs’ Verified Opposed Motion to Strike Deemed Admissions
k. Doc. 54281700

– Exhibit A

– Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ First Request for Admissions
l. Doc. 54281752

– Proposed Order Granting Continuance

m.Doc. 54281701

– Proposed Order Striking Deemed Admissions
n. Doc. 54477966

– Order Signed Denying Continuance
o. Doc. 54905419

– Notice of Hearing on Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for New Trial p. Doc. 55106115

– Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion for Sanctions against Defendant Real Time Resolutions, Inc. and its Counsel Anthony Petrocchi q. Doc. 55106116

– Exhibit A

r. Doc. 55106117

– Exhi bit B

s. Doc. 55106118

– Exhibit Ct. Doc. 55106119

– Exhibit D

u. Doc. 55070772

– Notice of Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Request for Sanctions

v. Doc. 55097429

– Notice of Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion for Sanctions against Defendant Real Time Resoluti ons, Inc. and its Counsel Anthony Petrocchi
w. Doc. 55099482

– Rule 11 Agreement The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s
record on or before November 14, 2013 , containing the above

- listed items

. If the omitted item s are not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file. Appellant’s brief is due 30 days after the supplemental clerk’s record i s filed.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Scott Sullinger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NeoMagic Corporation.



Date: December 13, 2005



By:

/s/    SCOTT SULLINGERName:

Scott SullingerTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Howard Root, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | 1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |                                                 |  |  |  | 
| | ----------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
| | /s/   Howard Root                              
| |                                                
| | Howard RootChief Executive OfficerJuly 22, 2005

---
# C_2020036EN.01003201.xml

| 3.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2019 — gastivo portal v EUIPO — La Fourchette (Depiction of a fork on a green background)

(Case T-266/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark depicting a fork on a green background - Earlier EU figurative mark gastivo - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 36/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: gastivo portal GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, N. Willich and N. Achilles, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: La Fourchette SAS (Paris, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2019 (Case R 1213/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between gastivo portal and La Fourchette.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders gastivo portal GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders gastivo portal GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 556 -CV

Be tty Ric ht e r , A ppe lla nt

v. Ke ith Richter , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COM AL COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C2005 -06 82A , HO NORAB LE JACK H. RO B ISO N , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
We dismi ss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. The order a ppeale d from wa s signe d on J une 5, 2006. B eca

use no motion or other document trig g eringthe extended timetables wa s filed, the notice of appea l was due July 5, 2006. SeeTex. R. App. P . 26.1. The notice of appe al was not filed until September 18, 2006. Be tty Richter filed a Motion to Ex tend Post-J ud gm en t Dea dlines in t he tr ia l c ourt , re qu e sti ng a fi nd ingthat sh e did no t r e c e ive no tic e of

the jud g me nt u

nti l A ugus t 17, 2006. SeeTex. R. C iv. P. 306a. The hea ringwas set f

or September

26, 2006. The cler

k’s re cord fi le d in thi s app e a l did not c on ta in a ru lin g . Witho ut a fi nd ingtha

t sh e did no t r e c e ive no tic e un til August 17, 2006 or later, B etty Richter’s notice of appe al was untimely filed. By letter dated November 16, 2006, this Court’s cler k reque sted an explanation from appellant r eg ardingthe appa rent untimeliness of the filing of her notice of appea l. T he re sponse was2

due Nove mber 27, 2006. The letter war ned that, abse nt a re sponse, the appe al would be dismissed. Appellant did not file a r esponse to the c lerk’s r equest. At this Court’s reque st, the Comal County

District Clerk sent a c opy of the district co u rt ’s docket sheet listing orde rs of the court. This shee t contains the notation “motion to ex tend denied” on September 26, 2006.

B e c a us e a pp e lla nt’ s n oti c e of

a pp e a l w a s un ti mel y , w e la c k ju ri sd ic tio n o ve r t

his appea l. Se e W

ilk ins v . Me tho dis t He alt

h Ca reSy s. , 16 0 S.W. 3d 55 9, 56 4 (T e x. 20 04 ). We d ism iss this appeal for

want of jurisdiction.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Mar ch 14, 2007
# C_2019383EN.01003801.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/38

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2019 — XW v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-541/19)

(2019/C 383/44)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XW

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Questions referred

Is the total flight distance to be used as a basis for calculating the entitlement to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also in the case where the arrival of a passenger at the final destination is delayed by three hours or more solely as a result of a delay/cancellation of the connecting flight, but the feeder flight was on time, the two flights were operated by different air carriers and the flights were booked together?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

---
# C_2020077EN.01004601.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Volkswagen v EUIPO (CROSS)

(Case T-42/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark CROSS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1)of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 77/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Thiering and L. Steidle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Schneider, S. Hanne and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2018 (Case R 2500/2017-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign CROSS as an EU trade mark,

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned, Betsy Henley-Cohn and John S.
Tomac, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer, respectively, of
BIW Limited (the "issuer"), do each hereby certify that the report on Form 10-K
accompanying this certification (the "report") fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the issuer.




/s/ Betsy Henley-Cohn
--------------------------
Betsy Henley-Cohn
Chairwoman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
(chief executive officer)
BIW Limited

March 30, 2005


/s/ John S. Tomac
--------------------------
John S. Tomac
President and Treasurer
(chief financial officer)
BIW Limited

March 30, 2005
(January 27, 1986)

#### Bistrian Gravel Corporation, Respondent-Appellant, v Wainscott Northwest Associates, Appellant-Respondent.

In a breach of contract action, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.), entered October 26, 1983, as, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of plaintiff and against it in the sum of $14,100 with respect to the first cause of action and dismisses its counterclaim, and plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same judgment as dismisses its second and third causes of action.

Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the provision dismissing the third cause of action and by substituting therefor a provision awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $2,625 on that cause of action. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment.

It was properly determined by the trial court that plaintiff was entitled to be paid by defendant for three concrete fire cisterns as installed, inasmuch as it is undisputed that plaintiff did install them. While the installation of the fire cisterns was rejected by the fire department having jurisdiction on the basis that they were concrete and not fiberglass, the oral agreement between the parties did not make approval of the fire department a condition precedent for payment *(see, Continental Ins. Co. v Albany Hous. Auth.,*85 AD2d 782; *Public Improvements v Parker Constr. Corp.,*59 AD2d 671; *cf. Macchia v Liggett,*67 AD2d 905). Further, the trial court properly refused to construe the parties’ agreement as being conditioned upon an implied duty to obtain such fire department approval *(see, Rowe v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co.,*46 NY2d 62, 69; *Colonial Roofing Corp. v John Mee, Inc.,*105 Misc 2d 140, 147). Moreover, the Code of the Town of East Hampton, including "Standard Sheet No. 3”, allowed the installation of concrete fire cisterns and did not delegate to the fire department the right to vary such code requirements. In any event, the granting of such a right would have been an improper delegation of legislative authority.

Moreover, plaintiff established and defendant concedes that *682it properly performed as to its third cause of action to the extent of $2,625 and that the parties’ written agreement clearly establishes that each step of the contract was separate and that the parties could terminate the contract upon completion of any of the various steps *(see, Matter of Wilson,*50 NY2d 59, 65; *Rhine v New York Life Ins. Co.,*248 App Div 120, 135, *affd*273 NY 1).

Therefore, plaintiff is awarded an additional principal sum of $2,625. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.3



Confidential



LOGO



Interoffice Memorandum



|      |  |                                                          
|----- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|To:   |  | Personnel File                                           
|      | 
|From: |  | Timothy M. Shannon, EVP & Chief Medical Officer          
|      | 
|Date: |  | February 1, 2005                                         
|      | 
|Re:   |  | Amendment to Employment Agreement dated September 9, 2002



I, Timothy M. Shannon, (the
Executive) signed an Employment Agreement (the Agreement) with my employer, CuraGen Corporation (the Company), on or about September 9, 2002, and subsequently signed an Addendum to the Agreement on October 31, 2003.
Exhibit A, Item 1) of the original Agreement provides that the Executives initial base salary shall be subject to increases by the Board of Directors, which shall review the salary periodically. Therefore, pursuant to the minutes of the
January 25, 2005, Meeting of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, the Executives 2005 base salary will be adjusted to $310,000 per year, payable in bi-weekly installments.



Unless explicitly changed in the Addendum dated October 31, 2003, all other terms of the
original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Timothy M. Shannon  
|Timothy M. Shannon      
|                        
|/s/ Jonathan M. Rothberg
|Jonathan M. Rothberg
#### Sekou DIABY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-2325.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 18, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 4, 2011.

*27Randall L. Johnson, Johnson *&*Associates, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney' General, Susan Houser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Marion E. Guyton, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sekou Diaby, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his third motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred. We have reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief on Diaby’s motion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2011). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re: Diaby,*(B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Sam Kraynek, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting;

5. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation
of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|      |  |                                     
|----- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: |  | March 30, 2006                      
|      | 
|By:   |  | /s/ Sam Kraynek                     
|      |  | Sam Kraynek, Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LINCOLN D. FINLEY, Jr., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JAMES FISCHER, Officer APD;

MICHAEL AGOSTA, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 16-15073 

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00913-HSG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017**

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

Lincoln D. Finley, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims 

pertaining to his arrest and prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 16-15073 

under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 

572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Finley’s claims alleging a false arrest 

and detention without probable cause as Heck-barred because success on Finley’s

claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and 

Finley failed to show that his conviction had been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. 

at 486-87 (if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the 

invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless 

the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been 

invalidated”). We treat the dismissal of these claims as being without prejudice. 

See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissals 

under Heck are without prejudice).

Finley’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied as 

unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders 

Nicholas Financial, Inc. 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-143245) on Form S-8 of Nicholas Financial, Inc. of our report dated June 14, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Nicholas Financial, Inc. andsubsidiaries (the “Company”) which appears in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010. 

/s/ Dixon Hughes PLLC 

Atlanta, Georgia

June 14, 2010
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MANDINGO BOOBYYAA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-1568

September 27, 2023

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for

Hillsborough County; Nick Nazaretian, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.